← Risk register SOC 35-2013 · reviewed 2026-08-11

Cooks, Private Household

1,100 US workers · median $47,940/yr · Food

SAFE

The core of this job — buying produce, butchering, tasting, adjusting heat, plating on someone else's timeline in someone else's kitchen — is manual work in a space no robot is deployed in. AI takes over the paperwork edges: menu ideation, recipe scaling, nutrition math, grocery lists, and dietary-restriction cross-checks. What buyers actually pay for is a trusted person in their home who knows the family's allergies, moods, and preferences and is accountable when a dinner party goes sideways.

10-year outlook: Demand tracks high-net-worth household spending, not AI capability — the occupation stays small and secure, with the planning and shopping-list side of the day shrinking to minutes.

Score — 67/100 resistance

Five dimensions, 0–20 each, summed. Higher means more protected. The arithmetic is shown so you can check it: 17 + 19 + 3 + 17 + 11 = 67.

Task resistance 17/20

Tasks largely resist digitisation. Selecting fish at a market by smell, breaking down a whole chicken, judging when a sauce has broken and correcting it, and holding a four-course service to a host's shifting arrival time are physical and sensory judgments no software executes — only the ordering lists and macro counts have moved off the cook's plate, which is why this sits at 17 rather than mid-range.

Embodiment 19/20

Hands-on in uncontrolled environments. You work standing in a stranger's domestic kitchen with unfamiliar burners, dull knives, a temperamental oven and a toddler underfoot, carrying groceries in and hauling stock pots — an uncontrolled, unstandardised space that no kitchen robotics pilot targets, hence 19 rather than the 13-15 of a fixed commercial line.

Liability shield 3/20

No licence, no signature requirement. No state licences private household cooks; a ServSafe card or food handler permit is at most a hiring preference and the employer, not a licensing board, is who removes you — so 3 reflects a real but non-statutory food-safety expectation, not a protected credential.

Trust premium 17/20

The human relationship is the product. Clients hire you because you hold the keys, know which child's peanut allergy is anaphylactic, and cook around a spouse's chemotherapy nausea; that intimacy is the product, though it stops just short of 20 because household staff are still replaced when a family relocates or economises.

Judgment & accountability 11/20

Meaningful discretion. You decide substitutions when the fishmonger is out, whether reheated stock is still safe, and how to feed six unexpected guests from what's in the pantry — genuine discretion inside a brief the employer sets, which is why this is 11 and not the 15+ of someone owning consequential calls no one else reviews.

Scored twice. An independent second run returned 67/100 — SAFE, agreeing with the verdict above.

This score sits on a verdict boundary. At 67/100 it is one point from EXPOSED. Re-scoring moves results by a point or two, so here the score is more informative than the label.

Confidence: medium · reviewed 2026-08-11 · how scoring works

Tasks already automatable

What survives

Active moats: embodiment, trust, physical-presence

How to future-proof this job

Field report — do you do this job?

Has AI actually changed your work?

Self-reported and unverified — a sentiment signal, not a survey. One response per person per occupation; you can change your answer.

From people who do this job

Nobody has filed one yet. If you do this work, you know things the rubric can't see.

What has actually changed in your work?

Concrete beats general: a tool that arrived, a task that moved, a headcount decision you watched happen. Don't include anything that identifies you or your employer if that would put you at risk.